This statement was made when the World Council of Churches (WCC) was founded in Amsterdam in 1948. It is also the starting point for the Christian Council of Sweden (CCS) contribution to the parliamentary inquiry concerning a Swedish policy for global cooperation in the area of values and globalization.

We are of the opinion that today's globalization is shaped by values that rarely are made visible. We live with consequences that often are presented as the only ones available. the Christian Council of Sweden believes that it is important to examine the guiding values. We also want to question the existence of just one developmental option. All too often citizens are told that there is only one path to achieve development, success, welfare, etc. If we don't accept that path, we are "enemies of globalization", or some such epithet. At the same time, churches have learned that life hardly can be restricted in this way. As members of a worldwide Christian community, we are constantly being challenged by other churches and individuals demanding respect for their way of formulating problems and their attempts to seek solutions to them. They refuse to accept the idea that an ideology, developed in a certain context under certain conditions and based on certain values, should be universal and the only model for societies that are quite different.

Based on an appeal from the world-wide church, our message is that there is a need for a globalization of solidarity, in which human dignity is upheld and actions are governed by our awareness of mutual interdependence.

Today's type of globalization leads to a standardization of cultures and to an undermining of human dignity. Based on an appeal from the world-wide church, our message is that there is a need for a globalization of solidarity, in which human dignity is upheld and actions are governed by our awareness of our mutual interdependence.

We believe that a Swedish policy of global cooperation is best created through of participation and in a perspective diversity. To broaden the basis of the Christian Council of Sweden's contribution, we asked a number of persons in different parts of the world to reflect on the under-lying values of globalization and how globalization should be shaped in order to focus on people instead of economics or technology. We want to thank Anna Karin Hammar, Church of Sweden, Cynthia Hewitt de Alcántara, UNRISD, Mexico, Mats Hårsmar, Diakonia, Burkina Faso, Opa Kapijimpanga, Afrodad, Zimbabwe, Prawate Kid Arn, Asian Church Conference, Thailand, and Lawrence Surendra, environmental economist, India, for sharing their expertise, thoughts, and reflections with us. To a great extent, this paper is based on their work.

With its contribution, the Christian Council of Sweden wants to start a dialogue around values and their relationship to the Swedish policy for global cooperation, in order to shape a globalization that centres on people and affirms our mutual interdependence.

Basic values

There is broad international acceptance of the concept of the inherent dignity of each human being and the idea that this inherent dignity is the foundation of universal human rights. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights begins by stating that "all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights".

There is not as much consensus regarding the philosophical and religious premises for this human dignity and its application. The lack of common premises has not stopped the development of international declarations of human rights. There have been great deficiencies in the implementation and observance of these rights, however.

In many countries, the deficiencies have been particularly obvious when it comes to applying social and economic rights. The income gap increased in rich nations, such as Great Britain, the United States of America, and Sweden, during the 1980's and the early 1990's. Every person's right to welfare and economic equality was considered as a political ambition and goal rather than as a human right and thus fell outside the categories of civil and political rights. Globally, where one fifth of the world's population - mostly women - lives in extreme poverty, the difficulties have been even greater. It was an important step in the right direction, when in 1998, the UN, referring to all persons being endowed with human rights, accepted the challenge of erasing extreme poverty.

Possible uncertainties concerning the observance of human rights must never be allowed to diminish the respect for the equal dignity of all human beings. Everyone must cooperate in the defence of universal human dignity without distinction of sex, race, age, religion, ability, social status, nationality etc. Differences in living conditions and financial inequality can never annul that which, according to Christian belief, is true for all persons: that all are created in the image of God.

Possible uncertainties concerning the observance of human rights must never be allowed to diminish the respect for the equal dignity of all human beings

The belief that God created the world is an important biblical prerequisite of the Christian perception of man. God, who created the universe and formed the minerals, plants and animals of the earth, also, as his crowning glory, made human beings with a special duty to rule over creation.

"Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image and likeness to rule the fish in the sea, the birds of heaven, the cattle, all wild animals on earth, and all reptiles that crawl upon the earth.' So God created man in his own image; male and female he created them." (Gen 1.26-27)

All human beings thus exist because it is the will of God. God's intention is for man to care for creation. Man was created with a responsibility for the rest of creation and was thus given a special role as God's co-worker in looking after and caring for a creation seen by God as good, in complete accordance with his purposes. "And God saw that it was good", is repeated time and time again in the story of the creation in Genesis 1.

The survival of creation is dependent on man doing his job and fulfilling the great responsibilities he has been given. The future of creation is to a large extent up to humankind.

This does not mean that man is God's equal. Man is certainly not a creator in the same sense as God, and he cannot accept that role. The ability to create, in the sense referred to in Genesis 1, belongs exclusively to God. Man is tempted to make himself greater than he is, to try to be like God by crossing the boundaries that have been set for human life and action.

In addition to caring for the animals and the soil, people are also responsible for each other and for the well-being of their fellow human beings

Among themselves, however, people are equal. In the same way as they share a common origin, they share a common fate. Human beings live in a mutual partnership. In addition to caring for the animals and the soil, people are also responsible for each other and for the well-being of their fellow human beings. Cain betrayed this task and killed his brother Abel. He justifies himself with a question: "Am I my brother's keeper?" Then the Lord said, "What have you done? Hark! your brother's blood that has been shed is crying out to me from the ground." Finally, God puts a mark on Cain "in order that anyone meeting him should not kill him". (Gen 4:9-14)

Through our common origin and common fate, we are mutually dependent upon each other as humans. We differ one from the other and are equipped with different resources and talents. Cain killed Abel because he could not see that Abel's success benefited him, too, since one was a shepherd and the other a tiller of the soil. Cain lacked the ability to see how success and happiness can be shared when we take our mutual dependence seriously.

Through our common origin and common fate, we are mutually dependent upon each other as humans

The earth is one and it is the home of all human beings. The resources of the earth - soil, air, and water - are limited, and those who inhabit the earth must be frugal with these assets and distribute them in such a way that everybody benefits. This is part of the task the Creator gave the people he created.

God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase, fill the earth and subdue it, rule over the fish in the sea, the birds of heaven, and every living thing that moves upon the earth." God also said, "I give you all plants that bear seed everywhere on earth, and every tree bearing fruit which yields seed: they shall be yours for food. All green plants I give for food to the wild animals, to all the birds of heaven, and to all reptiles on earth, every living creature." So it was;"

Even though all human beings are equal in value, their opportunities of doing something for the future of the earth and for the support of humankind differ. We do not have the same opportunities to contribute to the common good. Our abilities to act often depend on what part of the world we are born in and who our parents are. Those who are rich and able to get a good education have a special responsibility to place their material and intellectual resources at other people's disposal.

Jesus takes a very radical stand on this issue and tells a rich young man to go away and sell all his possessions before he can serve God and his fellow men. Even if such requirements cannot be absolute or applicable to every situation, those values must be upheld that contribute to making the haves willing to share with those who lack things such as health care, education, and daily food.

Cooperation, solidarity, and a sustainable development are needed to offset materialism, individualism, and consumerism that characterize the rich parts of the world. The west is dominated by a monoculture that is very seductive in its temptations of happiness and wealth but which in fact has brought poisoned lakes, desertification, and large ozone holes in the atmosphere. This monoculture tends to spread indiscriminately through globalization.

Cooperation, solidarity, and a sustainable development are needed to offset the materialism, individualism, and consumerism that characterize the rich parts of the world

This development is in no way necessary. Many attempts have been made to define globalization. Most people prefer to use several expressions to describe what in every day language is summed up by the one term, "globalization". We agree with Anna Karin Hammar where she describes globalization in three different concepts, each one carrying a specific value connotation.¹ In this paper we propose to use "globalization" in the following three senses:

The globalization of solidarity
which stands for the attempt to unite humanity in mutual responsibility for each other and the environment.
Global restructuring
which involves using economic/financial, technological and electronic instruments in order to achieve a one-world market.
Globalism
which represents the norm-setting political and ideological process that is based on neo-liberal ideology and conforms to the so-called marketplace.

All these three forms of globalization are going on simultaneously, and they represent different views of what characterizes good global development. Examples one and three are characterized by their dependence on definite values and ethics, while number two is more value neutral. What we here call "the globalization of solidarity " is based on values that stress mutual responsibility for others, regardless of whether they live in our immediate proximity or on the other side of the globe. The driving forces behind "globalism" are, for instance, increased competition, self-interest, and the struggle for quick profits.

It might be helpful to differentiate between actual basic values and tools to achieve certain goals. The values presented here cannot be reduced to tools for certain gain. They are based on the principle of the unique and inherent value of each human being and our mutual interdependence.

These values are not negotiable rules. They are basic values that must form the framework for the discussion and definition of ethical criteria. It is crucially important that there is room for calm deliberations and time for well thought-out considerations of the rights and wrongs of global development.

When solidarity is globalized, it should be with respect for national differences and human needs that must be met through social diversity and cultural variations

Here, we want to establish that globalization has no inherent merits. Rather, it is a means to reach certain aims shared by many nations and people. These aims must be the realization of the human values already mentioned: human dignity and interdependence. The means used to achieve these aims must not contradict the fundamental principles of human dignity and interdependence. It is high time to de-mystify globalization so it won't be seen as the only path to global peace and understanding. There is reason to warn against the tendencies towards a standardization of culture and attitudes which can be noticed in the wake of economic globalization. When solidarity is globalized, it should be with respect for national differences and human needs that must be met through social diversity and cultural variations.

Globalization in all its forms is a tool to be used rationally, in deference to those values that are necessary for the survival of the earth and humankind. We believe that the second type of globalization, global re-structuring, is inevitable and can help improve education, life quality, and well-being of all. At the same time, we think that the view of globalization provided by technological and economic development must be supplemented by a globalization of solidarity. Without such a supplement, we run the risk of ending up in a moral no-man's-land, where the developmental responsibility is left to chance and where no one asks the pertinent questions concerning the survival of the earth and man's abilities to live and support himself on earth. We would like to see a global ethical conscience, or, to use another expression, a global ethics.

Today's globalization

All processes are governed by values, consciously or unconsciously. These values are not always explicit. An analysis of contemporary processes reveals that some values stand out more clearly. They can also be seen as the building blocks of the neo-liberal ideology and meet the criteria of globalism mentioned previously.

What values shape your life and find expression in your church and in your society?

In examining these values, a question posed by many third world theologians can be of assistance: What values shape your life and find expression in your church and in your society? We cannot evade this basic question, neither as church nor as a society.

One starting-point is our outlook on man and who he is. In today's globalization, the main player is a rational individual, acting out of self-interest and for personal financial gain. We are required to be capable of making rational choices for ourselves, whether the choice involves power utility providers or pension funds.

People are seen as individuals rather than as persons in community, as competitors rather than partners, as consumers and materialists rather than spiritual beings. Placing the individual in the centre is reminiscent of an individualism, based on the idea that all parties are equally free to make welfare choices. In reality, we can see that this favours the strong in society and invites greed. We have achieved a merciless system which makes people superfluous and deserts them if they cannot compete with the powerful few in the global economy. At best, they can become objects of charity. This outlook on man has reduced the human being to acting only out of self-interest and leads to a global, social Darwinism.

We have achieved a merciless system which makes people superfluous

As a result, we can observe a process of marginalization. It involves persons in rich nations living in socially exposed situations. Poor people in poor nations continue to be marginalized. Even whole regions and continents are marginalized from the world economy. This development process is increasing, despite extensive international initiatives aimed at these groups.

We must begin an analysis of how this outlook on man is connected to the ongoing marginalization.

Neo-liberalsm has its origins in Great Britain, the United States, Chile, and Argentina of the 1970's. The rise of neo-liberalism coincided with a financial crisis and the failure of the economic model of that era. Then followed the explosion of the debt crisis and the collapse of the eastern European bloc. What began in conservative think tanks, turned into a de-regulation trend which no government can resist, not even the ones with the greatest social awareness. There are many self-generating elements in globalization. One is the increasing participation by the middle class in the financial marketplace. The stock market affects the welfare of many families. Groups that earlier concerned themselves with full employment and low interest rates are now also interested in a high yield and low inflation.

Another component is the tendency of business to cut costs and raise profits by looking for cheap labour in the global marketplace. This competition between companies to cut cost threatens to lower the limits for fair wages and acceptable working conditions.

Large companies have also become more powerful in their negotiations with governments over taxes and tariffs. For many governments, the decreasing opportunity to levy taxes is becoming a growing problem. Governments can adjust to the decreasing tax base by reducing their obligations in the public sector. As a consequence of neo-liberal ideology, reducing the role of the state has become a political issue. In real life on the national level, however, it is less a policy matter than a way of dealing with a reduced tax base.

The market economy has become a market society, in which the attitudes, norms, and attitudes of financial transactions and economic efficiency have invaded all aspects of public and private life

Globalization has become a tool, used primarily by financial players to reach financial goals. The consequences in other areas can be seen mostly as side effect of economic globalization. Globalization has produced a system where the basic values are economic and determine development on the national and international levels.

Other values are subject to economic values. The market economy has become a market society, in which the attitudes, norms, and attitudes of financial transactions and economic efficiency have invaded all aspects of public and private life. Earlier, social relations were governed by other values, but this is changing. We are left with a depoliticized society where global financial frameworks are decided and designed by global financial actors.

Implicit in the term globalization is the notion that it concerns everything and everybody. This raises the question what it is that is being globalized today. In our experience, it is the gaps, not the welfare that is being globalized. This is a trend noticed by most nations. Even if many are financially better off, the gap is widening. We can also observe how an ever greater concentration of capital is gathered into ever fewer hands in a relatively small number of countries. Economic globalization excludes the poor instead of including them in development.

The neo-liberal ideology of globalism leaves no room for solidarity. If it exists at all, it is in the form of charity. Solidarity cannot be expressed only in money, however. It must include much more. Globalization has undermined and even destroyed human social relations.

The globalization of solidarity

Because of this, we would like to see a reform of the value system in the direction of values that benefit people on all levels.

Coherence is not an administrative matter to be solved by bureaucrats. It must be built on values and conscious political decisions and a political will

For change to occur, there must be a vision of a just society, a vision based on basic values, focusing on the dignity of man and our mutual interdependence. For progress to occur in this direction, it is crucial that such development is supported in various political areas. There will always be conflicts of interest. Therefore, we need an open discussion of what interests and what values should be prioritized. Citizens might otherwise get the impression that might is right. Coherence is not an administrative matter to be solved by bureaucrats. It must be built on values and conscious political decisions and a political will. If not, we will unintentionally be promoting a policy filled with contradictions and built on invisible value hierarchies. Because of this, there must be room for open political decisions, clear standpoints and accountability.

Solidarity

We are faced with giving solidarity a new meaning, if we want to achieve a globalization of solidarity. The right to make a profit must never be the top priority in human interaction. A new vision of solidarity must mean that international institutions and their policies are guided towards helping marginalized people and bringing about good living conditions for all. In this way, solidarity also can help prevent conflicts related to poverty and inequality. Solidarity needs to become the "hardware" of global cooperation once more.

Solidarity is connected to safety and security. It is the task of each family, tribe, or society to protect its members and ensure their welfare. Individual safety and group loyalty are two sides of the same coin. Loyalty to past and future generations has always been a given in most cultures. It is something we have lost in our culture. At the same time, increased ecological awareness has made us conscious of our responsibilities towards future generations.

Solidarity between groups of different social and income levels is expressed through taxation, which is the primary tool of redistribution. There has been strong pressure to decrease the burden of taxation. There is an obvious connection between this trend and the increase in inequality.

In a culture of solidarity, people exist primarily as social beings

A will towards mutual exchange, accepting criticism with humility, self-criticism, interest in the opinions and cultures of others, coupled with the ability to share, are necessary parts of a culture of solidarity. In a culture of solidarity, people exist primarily as social beings. Economy and technology exist for the benefit of people, not the other way round. Social development must be based on mutual interdependence and human dignity, also when it is called globalization.

Openness

It is typical of all forms of global development that they lack of a common centre. Many players participate and they do not always cooperate, although globalization seems to lead to uniformity and tends to favour the growth of a global mono-culture. There seems to be a great number of anonymous editors who separately are trying to write the agenda of globalization. But they are anonymous and do not appear openly, often because they don't want to acknowledge their own influence. The counter attack against such anonymous game plans is to promote as much openness as possible. For this to take place, we need independent analyses of who the anonymous editors are who today hide behind the claim that they are politically neutral players in the global arena.

In order to put the pressure on globalization democratically, open global institutions must be created. They must be strong enough to defend the principles of democracy in the global arena and have the authority and power to set the agenda and the norms for globalization.

Participation and democracy

Democracy is founded on the right of the people to exercise power. It is based on the participation of all and on the recognition that people have a right jointly to create the society they will live in. Can this concept of democracy be maintained in the global context, or does it have to be changed to correspond to the special participatory requirements of the global society? This is a difficult question to answer, but if we want to keep the term democracy, it must not be deprived of values such as human dignity and mutual human dependence.

In fact, democracy concerns the right of people to participate in decisions that affect their everyday life

Democracy must not be reduced to a question of the right to participate in general elections or of how public power is exercised. In fact, democracy concerns the right of people to participate in decisions that affect their everyday life. It is a violation of the basic principles of democracy when global society is shaped by a small elite in closed board rooms, while the majority of mankind is more and more marginalized.

What is needed is a comprehensive study and discussion of how to change globalization into people-centred development.

Liability

The difficulty of finding players in the global arena who are willing to accept responsibility for the globalization of the economy, for example, has already been mentioned. In fact, financial investments are often made under circumstances of great mobility. When conditions become more advantageous in another place, usually in another nation, the company moves. The global economy is characterized by extreme mobility which aggravates all attempts to hold players in the international marketplace liable for social shortcomings and for deceiving the victims of business shutdowns, for instance.

The question of liability must be handled in a broader context, where the different players in the global arena are included. As already mentioned, we call for a global ethics based on human dignity and mutual interdependence which can serve as a touchstone of what is right and what is wrong in global development. It must also be possible to determine culpability when people are victimized by global economic events.

A comprehensive vision

Global diversity is to some extent natural, and great variations in culture and life forms must be recognized as a prerequisite for all global development. Diversity must not be eliminated but should be encouraged. For this to happen, we need a comprehensive vision, where social, cultural and religious aspects are heeded. In the case of Sweden, one aspect would be the realization that other parts of the world are less secularized than our country.

Global diversity is to some extent natural, and great variations in culture and life forms must be recognized as a prerequisite for all global development

Just and sustainable development

Sustainable development must also be considered when one looks at the issues comprehensively. Globalization demands that the international community creates a clear program for sustainable development, where environmental, economic, and social aspects are considered. This is an urgent and important task. In many ways, globalization has contributed to the destruction of the environment, and the financial gap has widened. The environmental problems are also global and demand global solutions. The same thing is true for economic injustice, which must be solved in global cooperation. For this to happen, joint decisions must be taken in support of a more just economic world order. A global platform is needed to strengthen solidarity.

Participation

Participation has become a word with a positive overtone in all development debates. Every player who wants to be taken seriously must show the will and capacity to work for increased civil participation. However, participation is too important a concept to be thrown about idly in discussions or aid reports. Participation is a problem that must be tackled and filled with actual content. This is particularly important when the discussion concerns policies for a sustainable global development.

Eighty per cent of all trade takes place within the OECD group of nations

Economic participation

Economic participation in the globalization process is limited to the very few. On the national level, only a few countries participate. Besides the OECD nations, it is estimated that fewer than fifteen nations actively participate in the globalization process. Eighty per cent of all trade takes place within the OECD group of nations. Sub-Saharan Africa, with a population of more than 700 million people, today accounts for less than two per cent of the world's trade. The flow of international capital in the form of foreign investments and short-term capital investments presents an even more deplorable picture.

This is related to the difficulties experienced by countries outside the circle of the most developed nations in trying to compete in an increasingly tougher global market. As production becomes more capital intensive, larger investment capacity is required to compete.

The trade policy practised by the most industrialized economies in the past and even now contributes to further marginalization. Access to the American and European markets, in particular, is severely restricted, at the same time as producers in these nations are favoured by subsidies and other forms of manufacturing, marketing, and export support.

The debt crisis experienced in the early 1980's and later by a large number of nations in Latin America and Africa institutionalized their dependency and contributed further to their marginalization.

Marginalization occurs in part because resources needed for production and social investments are absorbed by external debt payments, in part because national sovereignty is undermined by dependence on aid and credit donors. In the first half of the 1980's, the debt crisis concerned mainly a number of middle income nations that failed in their obligations towards private creditors. In the 1990's, the situation changed into a problem of the poorest nations not being able to repay the governments in the north or international financial institutions, respectively. This changed the problem from one of international finance to politics. Paradoxically, this provided openings for lenders and aid providers to force through changes in economic and political systems as a condition for debt negotiations and later for continued aid.

Developmental aid, especially to the poorest and most debt-ridden nations, also threatens to lead to increased dependence and marginalization. During the 1980's, aid was blamed for locking economies of the recipient nations into non-productive, obsolete structures. There are several examples of foreign aid having been used to keep businesses and entire industrial sectors afloat with artificial means. Later, when foreign aid policies changed, and the nations, under strong pressure from foreign donors and others, opened up their borders, these industries crashed, causing great economic and social hardship. Today, when aid is more clearly focused on fighting poverty and on democratization, the receiving country runs the risk of losing its political control, due to the large number of politically difficult terms. Note for instance those cases where general grants are provided in order to strengthen the ability of the recipient nation to repay its debts. This support is supplied on condition that the nation cooperate with the IMF in carrying out various de-regulations and other reforms. This type of aid does strengthen the capacity of the nation to repay its debts, but its political control is weakened. The developmental and poverty-reducing effects of this kind of aid are increasingly being called in question, for instance by UNCTAD.

In industrialized nations, financial participation was a government matter in the 1950's, 60's and 70's. Through more or less developed welfare programs, the state was responsible for the employment and social security of the citizens. Sweden may have been the prime example of a model where all citizens had a chance to participate in the economy. Since the late 70's, however, social welfare has become synonymous with inefficiency, due to a change in ideology. Nations trying to pursue a policy of active re-distribution of wealth have been punished when more openly capitalistic markets raised the interest rates, undermining the currency of the nation.

Via the IMF and the World Bank, this ideology has been exported to less open but more externally dependent nations in Latin America and Africa. This happened through the so-called structural adjustment programs, i.e. conditional financial reform packets accompanying debt reduction and aid. The structural adjustment programs have been heavily criticized, and especially the World Bank has to some extent eased up on its hard neo-liberal stance. It appears that the neo-liberal equations were too simplistic, and that there is a positive relationship between social equality (investments in education, health, social stability) and efficiency (in terms of growth and development), after all.

The most serious consequence of globalization for economic participation is the fact that large parts of the world's population are totally excluded. From having been exploited previously as cheap labour, the poor are now being excluded from globalization and economic development. The rich no longer need the poor... The poorest groups in society are left out, disconnected from the global economic system and with ever weaker connections to the official political system

Social participation

Among other things, globalization leads to a separation of social strata. Throughout history, the rich and the poor segments of the population have been interdependent, in an almost symbiotic relationship. The feudal lord/capitalist provided earnings and some social protection, and the poor person provided labour. As a consequence of globalization and the fact that the rich have less need of the poor for production, the global elites now turn to each other for mutual economic and cultural exchange. The poorest groups in society are left out, disconnected from the global economic system, and with ever weaker connections to the official political system.

Individual development involves improved skills, greater freedom, creativity, responsibility, and material well-being. The chances for this development to take place depend on how civil society, including social affiliation, functions. If social coherence breaks down and entire societies are marginalized or even excluded from the global development process, the chances for individual development decrease dramatically.

Many of the conflicts of the last decade at first glance seem to be of ethnic origin, but are in fact a struggle for meagre resources and an expression of social frustration. There is a close connection between inequality and ethnic conflict. The oppressed group rallies around its ethnic identity in its struggle for justice. This link has always existed, but ethnic conflicts seem to be increasing in number and extent. This can in part be explained by factors connected to globalization:

The weakening of the developing state

Modernization and a cohesive nation state (often in the form of a one-party state) could be pursued in the post-colonial countries as long as there were resources to distribute. When resources dried up and structural adjustment forced the system to become more open and democratic, conflicts previously hidden came into light.

Modernization and industrialization

In the last decades, development has led to urbanization and alienation in the south. People leave not only their village and their family but a value system and a social context. In their new surroundings, the population is more exposed, socially and economically, and thus more receptive to new values (religious, ethnic, etc.).

Migration

Migration leads to the establishment of relatively large groups in new, unknown surroundings connected by their ethnic identity. Since these groups often have great difficulties asserting themselves economically and socially, they become a source of discontent and a breeding ground for ethnic mobilization.

Economic marginalization and social exclusion thus follow in the path of globalization. To counteract this, you need an integrated view of conflict prevention measures, such as including as many persons as possible in the formal economic systems and promoting social integration and stability. Above all, you need democratic political systems that promote the highest possible participation on the local, national and global levels. You must find a system of civil participation, where the individual feels represented and where the minority feels respected and included.

Political participation

While asserting political opportunities and promoting a stronger role for politics, it must be noted that traditional fora for civil and political participation are losing their relevance. Government, political parties, and the labour unions find it increasingly difficult to rally around clear visions and they are losing their credibility. The state is threatened from abroad by the globalization of the economic instruments of control, and from within by social disintegration, as discussed above. Political parties are no longer able to formulate visions for a comprehensive policy and are thus also not able to mobilize the population as active citizens. Governmental control weakens, a vacuum is created, and there is an increased risk of bureaucratic rule. Bureaucrats cannot be expected to set visions and direction based on an ideological formulation process, which further contributes to the weakening of the citizens' participation in the political process.

Increased unemployment and more flexible employment options make it more difficult for the labour unions to recruit members and keep them. Unions are also undermined by a political ideology that lets the collective take a back seat and by the fact that transnational companies cannot be influenced at the local level, or even at the national union level. At a time when companies find it easier to close a factory and establish a new one somewhere else in the pursuit of lower costs, labour unions find it difficult to assert the interests of their members. The labour union movement has faced this through more effective organization on a global level, where intense efforts are being made to assert and look after the economic and social rights of the next generation.

Locally, nationally, and internationally, people are organizing themselves based on their commitment and ambition to change their own life situation as well as that of people far away

Parallel to this crisis of formal political structures, new forms of organization are occurring in civil society. Locally, nationally, and internationally, people are organizing themselves based on their commitment and ambition to change their own life situation as well as that of people far away. Especially in the south, Non-Governmental Organizations and Community Based Organizations are becoming important players in the development process. On one hand, they increasingly provide services in the social and educational sectors, on the other, they perform a mobilizing function in countries where political parties and parliamentary democracy don't work. In the north, too, local mobilization is becoming more common. This can be interpreted as disenchantment with the formal political system, which has not succeeded in attracting and representing these groups. In the long run, however, it may contribute to a strengthening of the political system.

It is a matter of recapturing the political space.

We believe that there is an enormous potential in political mobilization, but it requires new expressions. It is a matter of recapturing the political space. Civil activism now appears in more and more exclusive and complex systems of influencing economic and political decisions. This tendency is in itself exclusive, since participation in the process requires both a social affiliation and access to information.

For marginalized and excluded groups to be included in a political system, space must be created for them to make autonomous decisions, and their capacity to fill this space must be effectively strengthened. This, in turn, is dependent on the opportunities for these groups to formulate their own priorities and development plans, and on how they choose to organize themselves locally, nationally, and regionally and how they want to communicate and interact with others on a global level. Tied to this are their opportunities to develop their own tools and democratic institutions that can contribute to positive development.

A controlled globalization process for increased participation

The outcome of this discussion must be that the globalization process should be controlled by values and principles that focus on human dignity, confirming mutual interdependence and based on genuine, substantial democracy. Global institutions must be transparent and answerable to national parliaments.

The globalization process we are witnessing today is controlled, but by totally different values. In the existing new world order, the development of the information technology, and the weakening of the nation state have combined to give those who control the flow of resources and information the power to set norms. Power ends up with those who have the mandate and right to set and interpret values and norms and who set the standards for what's right and wrong. We have already discussed the situation where the World Bank and the IMF prescribe a certain economic policy as a prerequisite for debt reduction and aid for a large number of nations in the south. The same thing can be said of the power exerted by the players in the financial market who determine what's the correct or incorrect financial policy and punish the incorrect policy through interest and currency exchange levels. As a result, we have a globalization process dictated by the large market players.

The outcome of this discussion must be to open up the fora where criteria for right and wrong are determined. There, participation can make a real, concrete difference. For this to happen, global institutions such as the WTO, the World Bank, the IMF and the UN must be reformed in such a way that their actions are based on the values described above, the dignity of man and mutual interdependence. This must be supported on the national level by enforcing a cohesive bilateral policy and among the multilateral institutions based on this clear and openly declared value foundation.

The outcome of this discussion must be to open up the fora where criteria for right and wrong are determined

A Swedish policy

We have described the globalization process that we see today, and its consequences. This description contains a value system that defines man as a rational individual acting in his own interest and for his own economic gain. This description also outlines a marginalization process, where people and entire societies end up outside economic and political systems. We also present an alternative based on a globalization of solidarity. This globalization of solidarity places the dignity of man in the centre and assumes that all people are mutually dependent on each other.

This globalization of solidarity places the dignity of man in the centre and assumes that all people are mutually dependent on each other

We argue that the globalization process must be controlled. We argue further that this can happen, only if politics and the politicians regain the initiative. This makes demands on both domestic and foreign policy. There must be coherence among different political areas and among different political instruments, bilaterally and multilaterally.

The Swedish government has become known as an ardent advocate for a stronger UN. We share this view and encourage the government to intensify these efforts. The General Secretary of the UN has initiated a "Financing for Development" process leading up to a summit in 2002. The aim of this process is to increase the coherence among multilateral organizations and to explain the interrelationships between trade, debt issues, aid, and international movements of capital. One idea being discussed during this process is how to strengthen the norm-setting and monitoring role of the UN. This idea is worth serious considerations.

Coherence

The word coherence has, like participation, become fashionable in politics. As with participation, one must be careful not to weaken it through careless overuse. Coherence as such says nothing about what should guide the policy and on what foundation different policies and political instruments should be based. This foundation must be openly defined and declared. We believe that a Swedish policy of global cooperation must be based on human dignity and mutual interdependence. Once these values are formulated as our basic political attitude on global issues, the next step is to create political instruments that will guarantee coherence: that the policy pursued in different areas is pulling in one direction.

One area where this would be very beneficial and lead to greater transparency is cohesion between the trade, foreign, and aid policies and Swedish performance, both bilaterally and in multilateral organizations such as the UN, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organization.

The export of Swedish arms and the government subsidies provided for this are in particular need of being subjected to the demand for cohesion based on the values mentioned above. Instruments to guarantee cohesion might include:

A permanent working group consisting of the Under Secretaries of the departments whose policies might influence a Swedish policy for global development. Its task would be to expose decisions undermining cohesion. The mandate and the composition of the group must reflect the fact that cohesion is a political rather than an administrative question.
Continuous feedback from the government to the parliament of how current policy in different areas relates to the basic values and goals formulated for a Swedish policy for global development.
A permanent civic commission for a coherent Swedish policy for global development with representatives of the government and its departments, business and industry, labour unions, scientists, and NGO's.

A monitoring commission

A policy based on every person's right to a life in dignity and affirming mutual interdependence cannot be formulated in an exclusively Swedish setting. We have argued the need and right of each individual and each society to define their own priorities and paths towards development. Solutions to the development problems must be formulated in the local context and must be built on local experience and local knowledge in order to work. In a globalized world, in which we clearly are dependent upon each other and where, especially, the activities of the big, rich nations affect the lives of smaller, often poorer, nations, it is necessary for us to listen to each other and learn from each other's experiences. Swedish agricultural policy will of course affect the situation of farmers in India, just as Swedish trade policy affects producers in Central America.

If we seriously want to formulate a Swedish policy for global development based on every person's right to a life in dignity and affirming mutual interdependence, we must find structures for listening to those around us. A model might be the establishment of a permanent parliamentary commission for the supervision of the activities of multilateral institutions and their consequences for the globalization process, especially in regard to development in the south. In addition to a number of Swedish parliamentarians, such a commission should include members from certain parliaments in the south, on a rotating basis, as well as representatives of civil society.

The tasks of such a commission would include:

Continuous monitoring of the part Sweden plays in multilateral institutions
Listening to representatives of Swedish NGOs concerning, for instance, economic reforms in poor, debt-ridden nations, trade deregulation in the field of agricultural products, environmental consequences of infra-structural projects, etc.
Listening to representatives of parliament, political parties and civil organizations in the south concerning the consequences of globalization
Documenting the experiences of the south in these areas.

Translation: Ragni Lantz

Note

1. She makes this proposal in her book Globalisering - ett problem för kyrkan? (Tro & Tanke 2000:7, Svenska kyrkans forskningsråd, Uppsala 2000) - in English, Globalization - a problem for the church?